Appeal No. 2002-2152
Application No. 08/701,764
For these reasons, we hold that the examiner has not made
out a prima facie of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785,
787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Rejection Based on Parker, Forde, Tang, and Kittrell
The examiner’s basic position is (answer, page 5):
It would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary
skill to include a catheter centering means and a
guidewire channel since these are not critical, are
well known features for catheters and provide no
unexpected result and to provide the claimed dosage
and coaxial cable, since these are not critical, thus
producing a device and as claimed.
Again, the examiner’s conclusion is not based on any
objective evidence. Moreover, the examiner’s position does not
address the fundamental deficiency in the combination of Parker,
Forde, and Tang with respect to the conductive coating recited
in the appealed claims.
Accordingly, we cannot uphold this rejection.
Summary
In summary, we reverse the examiner’s rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103 of: (i)claims 1 through 5, 10 through 16, 18
through 21, 38, 43, and 64 through 66 as unpatentable over
Parker in combination with Forde and Tang; and (ii) claims 6, 7,
9, 17, 39 through 42, 44, 45, 62, and 63 as unpatentable over
Parker in combination with Forde, Tang, and Kittrell.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007